The next story, about gladiators, starts
Romani e spectaculis gladiatoriis magnam voluptatem capiebant.Qua in re cernebatur non tam bellicosum populi Romani ingenium quam prava volgi indoles.The Romans took great enjoyment from the gladiator tournaments. something something was perceived not as the warlike disposition of the Romans as the corrupt character of the common people. Qua in re - is qua here referring to the enjoyment? Which, in the matter was perceived... still doesn't really make sense to me.
But wait, there's more.
primo pugnae gladitoriae inter mortuorum exseqiuas edebantur, postea ei qui magistratum petebant spectaculis huiusmodi plebis suffragia quaerebant.At first, the gladiator fights were performed between the last rites of the dead, afterwards ... I can't work out what the subject of petebant is. I doesn't make sense that it's the fights, (fights can't beg). Is it qui? I'm weak on my pronouns. If it's qui, what is the noun standing pro? If I could get that, I think I can work out who, by such spectacles were seeking the approval of the people.
and finally...
Barbari captivi et servi gregi adscribantur gladiatorum.Barbarous captives (or captured barabarians) and gangs of slaves were enrolled of (as) gladiators. My problem here is gregi, dative singular. I've tried it in words, and it says dative too. Why is it not greges (or -is )

(You will be relieved to learn that I've got no questions with the next two stories!)

Indeed. To the topicstarter it may be remarked, as a "pons asinorum", that a great many compounded verbs (wherewith I refer to contractions of particles with verbs), such as "con-venire", "in-haerere", etc., are used with the dative of the indirect object. Therefore, when you see such a word and a dative in the same sentence, the dative, as Ulpianus correctly observed, is often of the indirect object. Notice moreover, that said verbs may also occur, not with the dative, but with the (repated) preposition that is already attached to the word.

There is generally a difference in meaning, in that the dative appears to signify more of a metaphorical relation (for instance in this sentence upon which I, fortuitously, stumbled yesterday): "(Ipse Pompeius, ab inimicis Caesaris incitatus, et quod neminem dignitate secum exaequari volebat, totum se ab eius amicitia averterat et cum communibus inimicis in gratiam redierat), quorum ipse maximam partem illo affinitatis tempore iniunxerat Caesari" (B. C.), whereas the preposition+case conveys a litteral meaning, such as in "morbi inhaerent in visceribus". The difference seems apparent: in the first sentence Caesar isn't writing that "Pompeius litterally fastened, with a rope eg, the greatest part of his enemies to him (sc. Caesar)". Yet in the second sentece the literal meaning is employed: the writes does consider that ills de facto cling to the internal organs.

I'd like to make a further remark to benissimus. Although I agree with his analysis, I disagree with his rendering of the meaning of "quaerebant". I don't think "quaerere" means "to ask" here, but rather "to seek (to acquire)". Thus, the sentence as a whole seems best to be translated in the following manner: "Originally gladiatorial battles used to be organised (to take place) during the funeral procession, but later the candidates for the magistrate employed such spectacles to acquire the votes of the people"

Thanks for the explanation of 'qua in re'. Will add it to my list of stuff to remember.

ei, nom plural, not dative singular. (little embarrassment face)

As regards gregi, dative, I can't chose between shame and embarrassment. adscribo. compound verb. And I've only just done the chapter on compounds with dative too. Oh dear! (not the phrase I said under my breath).

Yeah it's probably because it's a retardedly incorrect puerile assumption of an actually irregular superlative, but "optimus" always endeavours to conceal his former retardation. Catchy name I agree Alas, why do I mock him when (cum) I myself pretend to be a catamitic convertor?